Lrs.Of Mangej Singh vs Devi Lal & Ors on 13 August, 2010

                                     1.

             S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.136/2010

                    LRs of Mangej Singh & Ors.
                                Vs.
                          Devi Lal & Ors.

               Date of Order              ::   13.8.2010


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. S.L. Jain, for the appellants

                               ...

      This second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment

and decree dated 29.5.2010 passed by learned Additional

District Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar affirming the judgment and

decree dated 12.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.),

Kuchaman City in Civil Original Suit No.20/2003.



      In brief the facts of case are that the plaintiff-respondent

Shri Devi Lal preferred a suit for permanent injunction and

mandatory injunction against the defendant-appellants with the

assertion that in southern side of his house a public way is

existing whereon the defendants are making encroachment.



      The learned trial court by judgment dated 12.2.2009

decreed the suit and while doing so, gave a definite finding of

fact by examining the evidence available on record. The finding

of fact given by the trial court reads as follows :
                                2.

           "पर व द पक क ओ      स पट पदर ए-1 पदररत
           क व य गय ह, ज नज         नकर पदर-1 म म क
           "जड" स" न प   दररत भर$ म क पट ह न बत य
           गय ह, जजसम उत      म ब हम+, क घ , म ज न
           क    सत अ/ककत ह। अ" त पक + प     उभय पक
           क स कय स यह सपषतय पम ण+त ह कक पशगत
           स"ल प    सत अवशय ववदम न ह, वह    सत आम
            सत ह य पततव द ग+ क तनज<        सत ह, इस
           समबन? म आम       सत क समबन? म नज    नकर
           पदर-1 बच नन म पदर-7 व पट पदर-9 पदररत
           हAय ह, जजसम पशगत भर$ म क आम      सत दररत
           ककय गय ह, जबकक पट पदर-9 क ददन ह ग म
           प/च यत नगव ड द     पट पदर ए-1 ज     ककय
           गय ह, ज द न, पट, क पत वल एक ह ददन /क
           29-6-1961 क द य     हAय< त" एक ह स/कलप
           स/खय 10 ददन /क    2-8-61 क म धयम स ज
           हAय ह। जजसम पट पदर-9 म पशगत भर$ म क
           आम    सत दररत ककय गय ह, जबकक पट पदर
           ए-1 म पशगत भर$ म क ब हम+, क घ , म ज न
           क    सत अ/ककत ककय गय ह, ककनतA पट पदर
           ए-1 म पशगत       सत क ककस< क तनज<     सत
           ह न क समबन? म क ई अ/कन नह / ककय गय ।"



     The learned first appellate court by the judgment dated

29.5.2010 while affirming the finding given by the trial court,

thoroughly examined the evidence available on record.



     The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that

the judgment and decree are based on no evidence.
                                           3.

               I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced.



               As a matter of fact, the finding given by the trial court is

          based on documentary evidence as well as oral evidence

          adduced by the parties during the course of trial. The concurrent

          finding of facts given by the courts below does not require any

          disturbance by this court, as the matter does not involve any

          substantial question of law.   This second appeal is accordingly

          dismissed.

                                                 (GOVIND MATHUR), J.

Sanjay/

4.